Thanks. That makes a lot more sense. The Register must have misinterpreted the controversy when they wrote this: > Rapid7 says it reported the two TeamCity vul

Thanks. That makes a lot more sense. The Register must have misinterpreted the controversy when they wrote this: > Rapid7 says it reported the two TeamCity vulnerabilities in mid-February, claiming JetBrains soon after suggested releasing patches for the flaws before publicly disclosing them. > Such a move is typically seen as a no-no by the infosec community, which favors transparency, but there's apparently a time and a place for these things.